82 Iowa 187 | Iowa | 1891
—
The answer to the petition and the arguments in the case by appellant present very many objections to the decree of the district court. Having in view one fact that should be without dispute, and we may be aided much to a speedy conclusion, which is, that the claim of Ezra Murray, and hence of the defendant, to the land is secondary to that of the plaintiff for the benefit of the creditors. The claim of appellant is not to any specific portion of the land, but to an undivided one-eighth. The order of the court was not to sell a specific part, but the whole. The contention of the appellant is not that the order for sale is inoperative as to the interest he claims, but as to the whole. He makes certain denials, and then, by affirmative allegations, questions the correctness of the proceedings of the probate court; such as that all persons in interest were not served with notice; that the petition did not contain a statement of all the claims against the estate; that the executor did not render a full account of the disposition made of the personal effects of the estate;
I. It is true that no service of notice was made upon the defendant. Can he, for that reason, even if
II. This is a collateral proceeding. Bunce v. Bunce, 59 Iowa, 533 ; Dahms v. Alston, 72 Iowa, 411.
III. The district court declared the conveyance of the land to defendant under the attachment proceedings
The decree of the district court should be and is AFFIRMED.